This is all just going right over your head, I think. I'm not saying an easy game can't be time consuming. And I'm not saying a hard game is always time consuming. I'm saying the time required to do something in the game is based on difficulty. So when figuring out the time commitment to do something in a game, it's going to be based on a number of different things, including difficulty. How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level?
Me: if it's really hard it might take me a couple of day's, perhaps weeks. Main reason lack of time. Still want to beat that level regardless it's difficulty.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual. Both can be seen completly different. Where the casual game is in fact the easy game to get into. Where the game that is played casual might still be the hardcore game just takes that person longer to achieve playing it casual (lack of time) then a player playing it hardcore (between 6 -12 hours a day)
Some things that describe "casual games" from wikipedia:
Extremely simple gameplay, like a puzzle game that can be played entirely using a one-button mouse or cellphonekeypad
The ability to quickly reach a final stage[5] or continuous play with no need to save the game
"The word "casual" indicates that the games are produced for the casual consumer, who comes across the game and can get into gameplay almost immediately."
A mechanically difficult game will not allow you to get into the gameplay "almost immediately."
"Every month, an estimated 200 million consumers play casual games online,[4] many of whom do not normally regard themselves as gamers, or fans of video games."
If they don't consider themselves gamers, it's reasonable to assume they're not going to be as skilled as gamers AT GAMES. So I'm not sure how you can say difficulty won't be a factor when making a game geared towards people who on average aren't going to be as skilled.
The bottom line is that if you look at games that people consider "casual friendly" they're not going to be as mechanically difficult as games that are considered hardcore. The most mechanically challenging games I can think of are also notorious for being inaccessible and NOT casual friendly. Not only that, often times they have a sequel or very similar title that is both EASIER and more popular among CASUAL players. Broodwar to SC2 meant an increase in the playerbase and a decrease in mechanical difficulty. Same with TFC to TF2. Same with Counterstrike.
As I've mentioned before, there was a crisis in the SC2 community when LoL became popular about how Blizzard needs to appeal to casual players more. NONE of the proposed changes were related to play session length. They were all based on accessibility and difficulty or some kind of flashy "rank" or "award" for doing things in game. Why would there be a crisis about appealing to more casual players if by your definition the game they're competing against is less casual friendly?
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual.
I've said this like a bajillion times but I think you've come into the discussion recently so I'll say it again: the question is what features/aspects of a game/whatever are more attractive to casual players. Casual friendly is the term that start this discussion. What makes a game more "casual friendly"? Difficulty is one thing, among many things.
I agree with you completely, BearKnight. I'd rephrase it to say that the new generation misses the point of why some of us who played the older games miss them. Part of it was the game design (old games had everything), but another part is that the player base has changed.
If DAOC was released today it wouldn't be as successful because todays MMO players are jaded and impatient. You can't get the current generation to be decent guildmates, let alone alliance members or realm mates. Appealing to the current MMO player is mostly why game designers keep building shallower and shallower games, because the player base gets shallower and shallower. And as each new crop of shallow games come out, they fail quicker and quicker because there is little content or replayability in these games.
More developers need to take a look at successful MMO's like EVE if they want a game that expands over time, instead of a game that makes a big splash at launch then nosedives (almost every other game).
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual.
I've said this like a bajillion times but I think you've come into the discussion recently so I'll say it again: the question is what features/aspects of a game/whatever are more attractive to casual players. Casual friendly is the term that start this discussion. What makes a game more "casual friendly"? Difficulty is one thing, among many things.
my answer is in my eddited reply before your reply.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual. Both can be seen completly different. Where the casual game is in fact the easy game to get into. Where the game that is played casual might still be the hardcore game just takes that person longer to achieve playing it casual (lack of time) then a player playing it hardcore (between 6 -12 hours a day)
Yes people can play a game more casually than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the "casual" game as considerer by most people. However, casual games are games that are more conducive to casual play. So really what you're saying is that there are outliers or anomalies in the data where some people will play a casual game in a hardcore way, or play a hardcore game casually.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual. Both can be seen completly different. Where the casual game is in fact the easy game to get into. Where the game that is played casual might still be the hardcore game just takes that person longer to achieve playing it casual (lack of time) then a player playing it hardcore (between 6 -12 hours a day)
Yes people can play a game more casually than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the "casual" game as considerer by most people. However, casual games are games that are more conducive to casual play. So really what you're saying is that there are outliers or anomalies in the data where some people will play a casual game in a hardcore way, or play a hardcore game casually.
What data? You are making all this up aren't you? You haven't linked to any data.
What are these hardcore games you keep mentioning? You keep mentioning hardcore games = games with tough to understand mechanics. So once you have digested and understood the mechanics the game goes from hardcore to casual?
You are going to have to list some of these so called hardcore games.
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level? Well if it's really hard I could be here all night.
Or, if it's a casual game, you could stop playing and pick up the difficult game whenever you want. Only a hardcore player actually sticks with it all night.
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual. Both can be seen completly different. Where the casual game is in fact the easy game to get into. Where the game that is played casual might still be the hardcore game just takes that person longer to achieve playing it casual (lack of time) then a player playing it hardcore (between 6 -12 hours a day)
Yes people can play a game more casually than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the "casual" game as considerer by most people. However, casual games are games that are more conducive to casual play. So really what you're saying is that there are outliers or anomalies in the data where some people will play a casual game in a hardcore way, or play a hardcore game casually.
What data? You are making all this up aren't you? You haven't linked to any data.
What are these hardcore games you keep mentioning? You keep mentioning hardcore games = games with tough to understand mechanics. So once you have digested and understood the mechanics the game goes from hardcore to casual?
You are going to have to list some of these so called hardcore games.
Hardcore doesn't = games with tough to understand mechanics. That is one thing that would make a game hardcore, but you can have a hardcore game without difficult to understand mechanics. And I have mentioned hardcore games many times throughout this conversation. Some examples: Dark Souls, Broodwar, Team Fortress Classic, Quake Live, etc.
And just because we don't have the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist. I'm saying when you guys bring up somebody who plays a casual game in a hardcore way, or plays a hardcore game casually, those are anomalies. They're outliers. They're not the norm. You're trying to argue against a trend by using extreme example. I'm talking about the trend. I'm saying hardcore players will gravitate towards difficult games more than casual players will, and casual players will gravitate towards easy games more than hardcore players will.
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
If I am doing that you are doing the same. Who says casual is related to relaxation, stress and difficulty? You do.
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Training up your faculties is called "training". It is not the same as grind. And if you can't tell the difference we are in a deeper swamp than I thought.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
No they didn't. Did you read them?
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Which definitions are you looking at? Are you looking a general definition of the word "casual" or have you actually found how it is defined in the context of video games?
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Accessibility does matter to casual players, but it is not related to difficulty. There's nothing to support the claim that difficulty would factor into being casual friendly or not.
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
You have demonstrated nothing. You asked your friends what they thought, you reported the results. I don't know what you asked, how you asked it, and what their exact responses were. Frankly, your little "study" is void.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
My definition, Venge's definition and Arenanet's definition are the same in key parts. No one believes difficulty affects casual play but you.
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
In any game, you have to play regularly in order to maintain your skill. The game is still casual friendly. What is your point?
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Here we go with the general definition again.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
If I am doing that you are doing the same. Who says casual is related to relaxation, stress and difficulty? You do.
THE DICTIONARY!!!
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Training up your faculties is called "training". It is not the same as grind. And if you can't tell the difference we are in a deeper swamp than I thought.
It's time spent before you can be competent. In the context of the debate it makes little to no difference. A casual player wants to be able to play the game without restrictions. That includes length of play sessions and it also includes how difficult the game is. If the game is incredibly difficult, you're not going to be able to jump right in and start playing the game the way it's meant to be played. So a really difficult game isn't conducive to casual play.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
No they didn't. Did you read them?
Yes. Venge said the only thing that that matters is the length of the play session. The sources he provided included many other reasons on top of that. They disagreed with him.
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Which definitions are you looking at? Are you looking a general definition of the word "casual" or have you actually found how it is defined in the context of video games?
The definition of the word casual.
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Accessibility does matter to casual players, but it is not related to difficulty. There's nothing to support the claim that difficulty would factor into being casual friendly or not.
How in satan's spiny butthole is difficulty NOT related to accessibility? If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not very accessible. If you have to practice a lot to be competent at it, to play it correctly, it's inaccessible. Look at QWOP for goodness sake. Is that game accessible?
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
You have demonstrated nothing. You asked your friends what they thought, you reported the results. I don't know what you asked, how you asked it, and what their exact responses were. Frankly, your little "study" is void.
LOL.... no. I didn't ask anybody anything. It's a known issue that LoL is more casual friendly than SC2. Like I've said, there was a massive crisis in the SC2 community about the game not being casual friendly and it wasn't able to compete with LoL for those reasons. It lead to a lot of changes in the game, including things like ranks you can level up for each race, new avatar portraits and an emphasis on the "arcade" aspect of starcraft which promotes community made custom games that are mechanically easier and less hardcore PRECISELY to attract casual players.
Just because you're ignorant on this matter isn't my fault. It's common knowledge to people in both communities that SC2 isn't as casual friendly as LoL Believe it or not, I don't care. You're still wrong.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
My definition, Venge's definition and Arenanet's definition are the same in key parts. No one believes difficulty affects casual play but you.
And the dictionary, and common sense. Just because a couple of people on here agree with you doesn't mean it's not a circular argument. Using your definition in an argument ABOUT the validity of that definition is circular. PERIOD.
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
In any game, you have to play regularly in order to maintain your skill. The game is still casual friendly. What is your point?
My point is that in difficult games you have to do it MORE. It's not a binary state of either being CASUAL or HARDCORE. As is the case with everything in life, it's more nuanced than that. If a game is MORE difficult then it is LESS casual. You can't play it casually because you have to work at it to be good. It's amazing that you guys don't get this.
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Here we go with the general definition again.
Yeah, how dare I use the definition. Where do you think the term came from? Why do you think people are called "casual gamers." Because they play games casually. Casual indicates a number of different things, including relaxation. They don't want to play a stressful game. A really really difficult and inaccessible game like BW isn't one you can just play casually. You must understand this....
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
If I am doing that you are doing the same. Who says casual is related to relaxation, stress and difficulty? You do.
THE DICTIONARY!!!
Which dictionary is that?
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Training up your faculties is called "training". It is not the same as grind. And if you can't tell the difference we are in a deeper swamp than I thought.
It's time spent before you can be competent. In the context of the debate it makes little to no difference. A casual player wants to be able to play the game without restrictions. That includes length of play sessions and it also includes how difficult the game is. If the game is incredibly difficult, you're not going to be able to jump right in and start playing the game the way it's meant to be played. So a really difficult game isn't conducive to casual play.
In the context of the debate it makes all the difference. You can transfer over most of your skill from RTS to RTS, FPS to FPS, MOBA to MOBA, and MMORPG to MMORPG. What you cannot transfer is any accumulated wealth or advancement which you need to be or stay competitive in your original game.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
No they didn't. Did you read them?
Yes. Venge said the only thing that that matters is the length of the play session. The sources he provided included many other reasons on top of that. They disagreed with him.
I don't think Venge said length of the play session is the sole factor to a game being casual friendly. If he did, I would disagree with him. None of what he brought up, however, didn't talk about difficulty playing a factor.
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Which definitions are you looking at? Are you looking a general definition of the word "casual" or have you actually found how it is defined in the context of video games?
The definition of the word casual.
Whose definition?
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Accessibility does matter to casual players, but it is not related to difficulty. There's nothing to support the claim that difficulty would factor into being casual friendly or not.
How in satan's spiny butthole is difficulty NOT related to accessibility? If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not very accessible. If you have to practice a lot to be competent at it, to play it correctly, it's inaccessible. Look at QWOP for goodness sake. Is that game accessible?
You can make a game accessible through good documentation, tutorials, intuitive and informative UI. That is called usability.
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
You have demonstrated nothing. You asked your friends what they thought, you reported the results. I don't know what you asked, how you asked it, and what their exact responses were. Frankly, your little "study" is void.
LOL.... no. I didn't ask anybody anything. It's a known issue that LoL is more casual friendly than SC2. Like I've said, there was a massive crisis in the SC2 community about the game not being casual friendly and it wasn't able to compete with LoL for those reasons. It lead to a lot of changes in the game, including things like ranks you can level up for each race, new avatar portraits and an emphasis on the "arcade" aspect of starcraft which promotes community made custom games that are mechanically easier and less hardcore PRECISELY to attract casual players.
Just because you're ignorant on this matter isn't my fault. It's common knowledge to people in both communities that SC2 isn't as casual friendly as LoL Believe it or not, I don't care. You're still wrong.
See? You yourself don't bring up difficulty when you talk about casual friendliness. Much of what you bring up is accessibility.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
My definition, Venge's definition and Arenanet's definition are the same in key parts. No one believes difficulty affects casual play but you.
And the dictionary, and common sense. Just because a couple of people on here agree with you doesn't mean it's not a circular argument. Using your definition in an argument ABOUT the validity of that definition is circular. PERIOD.
Dictionary definition outside the context of video games. And I am not trying to prove my definition with my definition. I am trying to explain what the definition is.
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
In any game, you have to play regularly in order to maintain your skill. The game is still casual friendly. What is your point?
My point is that in difficult games you have to do it MORE. It's not a binary state of either being CASUAL or HARDCORE. As is the case with everything in life, it's more nuanced than that. If a game is MORE difficult then it is LESS casual. You can't play it casually because you have to work at it to be good. It's amazing that you guys don't get this.
No its definitely not a binary state, but you still haven't explained why skill should be involved. A game can be casual friendly yet difficult to master.
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Here we go with the general definition again.
Yeah, how dare I use the definition. Where do you think the term came from? Why do you think people are called "casual gamers." Because they play games casually. Casual indicates a number of different things, including relaxation. They don't want to play a stressful game. A really really difficult and inaccessible game like BW isn't one you can just play casually. You must understand this....
Look, those same casual players can play SC2 and enjoy it. The ladder system pits them against people with same skill level. With some practice, you can transfer what you know from WC3 to SC2. You don't need to grind for hours and hours to get gear, level up and be competitive.
It really irks you when someone says SC2 is casual friendly, does it? I feel that we could have a much more profuctive conversation the game wasn't brought up at all.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I almost can't believe this is necessary, but if a literature class has taught me anything, it's that looking words up in a dictionary of some sort takes some effort, but at least you can use words correctly.
Casual adjective 1. relaxed and unconcerned, informal or laid-back
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
3. happening by chance; accidental.
4. without formality of style or manner, in particular (of clothing) suitable for everyday wear rather than formal occasions.
noun 1. a person who does something irregularly.
2. clothes or shoes suitable for everyday wear rather than formal occasions.
The level of difficulty or required level of skill when talking about "casual" isn't really a consideration.
Does SC2 have a formal set of rules, that must be followed by design? Are there informal "rules" that people follow, that are above and beyond the rules provided by developer? If so, then it's probably not a "casual" game.
However, someone can play a non-casual game in a casual manner. If someone plays SC2 when they feel like it or irregularly, even if they are very competitive when they play, they are a "casual" playing a non-casual game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As the title says, I feel as if there is a newer generation of gamers, old and new of age, that just missed the point completely about MMO gaming. Not because it wasn't floating right in their faces, but because the point was made 10years ago with the original onset of MMOs, but then big companies got wind of the profits to be made and decided to come in guns blazing with fireworks, explosions, and boobs flailing everywhere in the glistening sunlight to get said market interested in their products.
The big companies (Blizzard) got wind of the profit opportunity alright, but they didn't come in blazing with fireworks, explosions & boobs....they came in with a much more streamlined MMO experience, that appealed to a MUCH larger audience than the old school of hard knocks MMOs that came before.
They interviewed many gamers that tried, but soon after quit, games like Ultima Online, EQ & SWG...and made changes to WOW to keep those customers, instead of losing them to the steep learning curve & other hardcore elements of traditional MMOs.
The target audience of modern MMORPGs are casual gamers, the largest sub-section of the gamer demographic pie.
It isn't about being one against the other. The "Older Generation" of MMOs that started the whole thing showed us a long time ago that it's about COMBINING everything into one package that spreads the amount of activities available to you so you're never bored of feel as if you've nothing left to accomplish. This also diversifies the population so that everyone has something they like. Crafters get their in-depth crafting system. Explorers get their fix for awesome dungeons almost no one goes to and barely understands how to traverse. Competitive players get their fix from highly engaging PvP that is linked in with PvE for armor, weapons, and supplies (aka: DAOC, Shadowbane, SWG, etc), and Carebears (not used in a derogatory sense) get their love from the PvE part of the game. This also leads to different mindsets trying out other types of gameplay they never thought they'd care about.
The other thing about this diverse, yet symbiotic, MMO world is that all of these roles are somewhat dependent on eachother. If the crafter isn't making enough weapons / armor to meet the demand of adventurers, less people are able to go out and adventure. If the content demands you have a large group of adventurers to explore a dungeon, but there is a shortage of well equiped adventurers (due to the supply shortage from the crafters), then people have to wait around to fill groups.
Again, in effort to appeal to a larger game audience, game designers (in the mold of WOW) try to reduce the amount of waiting time, and dependency on other players....so that the casual gamer can get in, make some progress, and get out, in a relatively short time frame (so that they can cook, do homework, clean, take the dog for a walk, etc.) THIS is why the roles of what a player can do have been narrowed so much.
I used to be a hardcore Carebear back in my EQ days, but after playing DAOC i learned i love BOTH worlds, but only when done correctly where both feed off each other!
I had the same experience in Ultima Online. Started deathly afraid of getting killed by other players, cut my MMO teeth on killing monsters....then when I got the hang of that, fighting other players was much more entertaining.
The mixtures of highly important PvP with a world comprised mostly of PvE in an otherwise Questless design with some side-quests available by choice all the while having some instancing and a lot of open world gameplay that had a relatively in-depth crafting system is what made DAOC such the juggernaut, relatively speaking for its time, that it was. Did you guys forget this or was it not part of your "Generation" of gaming that you missed out? I hear quite a bit that people "Missed out" so they never understood how awesome DAOC really was (since it is a flaming pile of poo now after all the things Mythic/EA did to it).
I think there is a certian percentage of the new, more casual, MMO demographic that would enjoy a system like DAOC (or even UO & SWG), but I argue that the audience you are not speaking to would not have enjoyed DAOC.
It's not like the MMO playerbase has been frozen over the last 10 years, and everyone's just forgotten how great old MMOs used to be.....you're not talking to about 7-8 million fresh faces that wouldn't otherwise be playing MMOs, if they weren't as mainstreamed or dumed down as WOW, or similar follow-ups.
I just think both the player-base AND the developers of today are far too tunnel-visioned to actually "get" what an MMO was originally meant to be, and it most certainly wasn't supposed to be 99% instanced with little social interaction and no real difficulty involved to "achieve" things (aka: SWTOR is a prime example of what's wrong with today's "MMO").
I'll agree with you, in that the original MMO was meant to be a very different gaming experience, than what was available on consoles, or single player games on other platforms.
But, sadly, that has nothing to do with other development / publishing houses seeing an opportunity in the market, and siezing it.
When Blizzard decided to stick it's big toe into the MMO genere market, they saw an opportunity to match one of the gaming industries most lucrative pricing model (box sale + reoccuring monthly fee), with the largest sub-section of the gamer demographic....the casual gamer.
So.....they make a MMO game that lowers those barriers to entry, for new gamers (through a very streamlined / waterd down system), matched it with huge brand name recognition (Warcraft series), and put together a very polished & well developed game.
I'd also like to make the point that it is impossible for people to "outgrow" a specific genre or activity that they truly enjoy. What has happened is that the industry has changed too much from its original intent into something only about money now, and not so much about building living, breathing, socially driven worlds that actually matter beyond the first 3 months.
The lack of success from more recent MMO titles, in the theme of WOW, isn't because the developers went off the reservation from the traditional MMO design....the reason they haven't been very successful, with players leaving in droves after the first 3 months, is because the overall game design is the SAME as the game they've previously played for 5-10 years.
This is the typical scenario:
Gamer plays WOW for 5-6 years, and starts to experience burnout (from the repetitive themepark model), and is looking for a new MMO, to give them that same feeling they had when they first played WOW
Warhammer comes out, and this gamer jumps all over it. After playing for 2-3 months, they realize that this game is largely the same. It's level based, has a linear gear based progression model, and are running the same kill / delivery quests they had in WOW.
They go back to WOW because if they are going to play the same game, they might as well play WOW, where they have an established character, network of friends, and understanding of the game.
Rift comes out, and the gamer jumps all over it. Again, they see the forest through the trees after about 2 months, then go back to WOW.
SW:TOR comes out......and rince repeat.
Again, the issue here is that these game publishers / developers are trying to appeal to the same 10+ million subscriber base that WOW has, make the same game...with a few gimmick twists (wings, dynamic raids, etc.), and nearly all of the new games customerbase will be doing the SAME things they've been doing for 5+ years already.
I almost can't believe this is necessary, but if a literature class has taught me anything, it's that looking words up in a dictionary of some sort takes some effort, but at least you can use words correctly.
Casual adjective 1. relaxed and unconcerned, informal or laid-back2. not regular or permanent, in particular.3. happening by chance; accidental.4. without formality of style or manner, in particular (of clothing) suitable for everyday wear rather than formal occasions.noun 1. a person who does something irregularly.2. clothes or shoes suitable for everyday wear rather than formal occasions.
The level of difficulty or required level of skill when talking about "casual" isn't really a consideration.
Does SC2 have a formal set of rules, that must be followed by design? Are there informal "rules" that people follow, that are above and beyond the rules provided by developer? If so, then it's probably not a "casual" game.
However, someone can play a non-casual game in a casual manner. If someone plays SC2 when they feel like it or irregularly, even if they are very competitive when they play, they are a "casual" playing a non-casual game.
People keep bringing this up and I keep explaining the difference. Yes, people can play a non casual game casually. The question is what makes a game casual friendly. What is going to facilitate casual play? What is going to attract casual players. If a game is extremely mechanically difficult, that's not conducive to somebody playing it casually. You have to work to get good at it which means you can't get into it quickly. You can't play it sitting on the toilet as TB puts it. And the skill to play the game is something that you lose if you don't play it regularly, so the game isn't a natural fit for a casual player. It's not casual friendly.
My apologies if I'm being redundant--at this point I'm not about to search the whole thread to see if someone else has already said this...
To me a casual friendly MMO is one that has fun things you can do by yourself if you only have 15 or 30 minutes to play while your wife or GF finishes putting on her make-up
In that sense, they pretty well all are casual friendly these days. Just about every single MMO in 2013 gives you the ability to fight, quest and/or grind in level-appropriate areas in a jiffy.
Thinking back to 10 or 15 years ago, it was hard to find quality 15 minute long gameplay in Asheron's Call or Dark Age of Camelot... just traveling to where the fun was would eat up most of that time.
Group content, almost by definition, is not casual-friendly according to my meaning... or it better not be. A 15 minute dungeon run (even though WOW has a few of those) is pretty useless.
For me difficulty has nothing to do with it. If I can enjoy it in 15 minute mini sessions, then it's casual friendly.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
My apologies if I'm being redundant--at this point I'm not about to search the whole thread to see if someone else has already said this...To me a casual friendly MMO is one that has fun things you can do by yourself if you only have 15 or 30 minutes to play while your wife or GF finishes putting on her make-up :)In that sense, they pretty well all are casual friendly these days. Just about every single MMO in 2013 gives you the ability to fight, quest and/or grind in level-appropriate areas in a jiffy.Thinking back to 10 or 15 years ago, it was hard to find quality 15 minute long gameplay in Asheron's Call or Dark Age of Camelot... just traveling to where the fun was would eat up most of that time.Group content, almost by definition, is not casual-friendly according to my meaning... or it better not be. A 15 minute dungeon run (even though WOW has a few of those) is pretty useless.For me difficulty has nothing to do with it. If I can enjoy it in 15 minute mini sessions, then it's casual friendly.
There is a group of people called casual gamers. Casual games are targeted at them. This is separate from the idea that hardcore games can be played casually, you see? Casual games are trying to attract casual gamers. They do that in a number of different ways. My point is that casual games will TEND to be easier than hardcore games. It doesn't mean every casual gamer sucks at games or are carebears or whatever else. But think about it... you have a group of gamers that by definition aren't going to be playing games as frequently or for as long. In some definitions casual games are people who don't typically consider themselves gamers.
so when determining how to attract casual players (aka make a casual friendly game), it stands to reason that they will on average be easier than games that are targeted towards people who play games in a more hardcore way. It truly baffles me that you guys aren't getting this.no offense.
My apologies if I'm being redundant--at this point I'm not about to search the whole thread to see if someone else has already said this...
To me a casual friendly MMO is one that has fun things you can do by yourself if you only have 15 or 30 minutes to play while your wife or GF finishes putting on her make-up
In that sense, they pretty well all are casual friendly these days. Just about every single MMO in 2013 gives you the ability to fight, quest and/or grind in level-appropriate areas in a jiffy.
Thinking back to 10 or 15 years ago, it was hard to find quality 15 minute long gameplay in Asheron's Call or Dark Age of Camelot... just traveling to where the fun was would eat up most of that time.
Group content, almost by definition, is not casual-friendly according to my meaning... or it better not be. A 15 minute dungeon run (even though WOW has a few of those) is pretty useless.
For me difficulty has nothing to do with it. If I can enjoy it in 15 minute mini sessions, then it's casual friendly.
There is a group of people called casual gamers. Casual games are targeted at them. This is separate from the idea that hardcore games can be played casually, you see? Casual games are trying to attract casual gamers. They do that in a number of different ways. My point is that casual games will TEND to be easier than hardcore games. It doesn't mean every casual gamer sucks at games or are carebears or whatever else. But think about it... you have a group of gamers that by definition aren't going to be playing games as frequently or for as long. In some definitions casual games are people who don't typically consider themselves gamers.
so when determining how to attract casual players (aka make a casual friendly game), it stands to reason that they will on average be easier than games that are targeted towards people who play games in a more hardcore way. It truly baffles me that you guys aren't getting this.no offense.
Oh now I see what the issue is. No, I don't think he confused "casual gamers" or "casual games" with "casual friendly". Iselin makes a perfectly lucid point on the subject.
Casual friendly game doesn't necessarily attract "casual gamers" (those who do not identify themselves as gamers) nor is it a "casual game" (a game which you can play while on the toilet). It simply more accessible and requires less time commitment than a game which is considered "hardcore".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
First of all, you're just saying this is what makes a game casual because I say this is what makes a game casual. None of it is based on anything objective. Casual is related to relaxation, which is related to stress, which is related to the difficulty of the game. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
If I am doing that you are doing the same. Who says casual is related to relaxation, stress and difficulty? You do.
THE DICTIONARY!!!
Which dictionary is that?
Take your pick. The common theme among the definitions is relaxed, not short sessions.
Second, you say you have to grind up your avatar in LoL in order to be competitive. Well you have to grind up your own personal faculties before you can be competitive in SC2 or any other mechanically difficult game.
Training up your faculties is called "training". It is not the same as grind. And if you can't tell the difference we are in a deeper swamp than I thought.
It's time spent before you can be competent. In the context of the debate it makes little to no difference. A casual player wants to be able to play the game without restrictions. That includes length of play sessions and it also includes how difficult the game is. If the game is incredibly difficult, you're not going to be able to jump right in and start playing the game the way it's meant to be played. So a really difficult game isn't conducive to casual play.
In the context of the debate it makes all the difference. You can transfer over most of your skill from RTS to RTS, FPS to FPS, MOBA to MOBA, and MMORPG to MMORPG. What you cannot transfer is any accumulated wealth or advancement which you need to be or stay competitive in your original game.
Noting how they're different doesnt demonstrate how it matters in the context of the debate. The context of the debate is can I pick up this game and be playing somewhat quickly. Accessibility. In a game that is mechanically difficult like SC2, Broodwar, etc. it will take longer before you're playing the game in a competent way. This is not fundamentally different from LoL's rank where it too will take a certain amount of time before you're playing at a competent level.
Third, Venge didn't provide sources that agree with him, he provided sources that disagreed with him in almost every way.
No they didn't. Did you read them?
Yes. Venge said the only thing that that matters is the length of the play session. The sources he provided included many other reasons on top of that. They disagreed with him.
I don't think Venge said length of the play session is the sole factor to a game being casual friendly. If he did, I would disagree with him. None of what he brought up, however, didn't talk about difficulty playing a factor.
I don't care what you think, he said it. Many times. Go back and look if you like. But if you're going to defend what somebody said, you should probably familiarize yourself with what he said. If you don't know, then don't say his sources didn't disagree wth him. They did.
And yes, you would disagree wth him. I POINTED THAT OUT AS SOON AS YOU GOT INTO THIS DEBATE. You said you don't believe the ONLY factor related to how casual friendly a game is would be length of play session. To which I responded ok well then you and Venge would disagree.
Fourth, no definition of the word relates to play sessions.
Which definitions are you looking at? Are you looking a general definition of the word "casual" or have you actually found how it is defined in the context of video games?
The definition of the word casual.
Whose definition?
I said no definition of the word relates to (the length of) play sessions. You said what definition. I said the definition of the word casual. Now you're asking whose definition? I can't prove a negative. I said no definition of the word casual is giving you any indication about the length of a play session, yet it was Venge's main point. So how can I point to a definition that DOESN'T indicate that? Do you want me to just start posting every definition of the word casual? Why are you wasting my time with this definition BS?
Fifth, those articles Venge posted focused on accessibility, not play time. Because accessibility is something that matters to casual players. And difficulty and accessibility are related. There's nothing anywhere that supports the argument that the only thing that matters to a casual player is the length of play session. It's ludicrous.
Accessibility does matter to casual players, but it is not related to difficulty. There's nothing to support the claim that difficulty would factor into being casual friendly or not.
How in satan's spiny butthole is difficulty NOT related to accessibility? If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not very accessible. If you have to practice a lot to be competent at it, to play it correctly, it's inaccessible. Look at QWOP for goodness sake. Is that game accessible?
You can make a game accessible through good documentation, tutorials, intuitive and informative UI. That is called usability.
The mechanical difficulty of the game is very much related to the accessibility. If a game is incredibly difficult (not confusing), it's not as accessible. As I've pointed out to you guys before, reality doesn't agree with you. The games that are considered non-casual friendly are the games that are generally mechanically difficult. Games that are considered casual friendly are generally mechanically easy.
Here's a quote FROM YOU:
"Games where you are literally just one button press away from having fun, are accessible."
Notice the key word there? FUN. If the game is too hard for you, you won't have fun. Correct? So how on earth is accessibility not related to difficulty again?
Sixth, you speak from some place of authority about how the term has been used historically, but as I've pointed out before in the case of LoL vs SC2, the vast majority of the community disagrees with you. This is also true with BW compared to SC2 and TFC compared to TF2.
You have demonstrated nothing. You asked your friends what they thought, you reported the results. I don't know what you asked, how you asked it, and what their exact responses were. Frankly, your little "study" is void.
LOL.... no. I didn't ask anybody anything. It's a known issue that LoL is more casual friendly than SC2. Like I've said, there was a massive crisis in the SC2 community about the game not being casual friendly and it wasn't able to compete with LoL for those reasons. It lead to a lot of changes in the game, including things like ranks you can level up for each race, new avatar portraits and an emphasis on the "arcade" aspect of starcraft which promotes community made custom games that are mechanically easier and less hardcore PRECISELY to attract casual players.
Just because you're ignorant on this matter isn't my fault. It's common knowledge to people in both communities that SC2 isn't as casual friendly as LoL Believe it or not, I don't care. You're still wrong.
See? You yourself don't bring up difficulty when you talk about casual friendliness. Much of what you bring up is accessibility.
Is it really too much for you to read 1 whole paragraph? Again, I'm not saying the ONLY thing related to casual friendliness is difficulty, but I'm saying it is a factor.
Seventh, you keep using your own definition to prove that SC2 is more casual than LoL as if that means anything in an argument ABOUT the definition of the term. That's circular and has no place here.
My definition, Venge's definition and Arenanet's definition are the same in key parts. No one believes difficulty affects casual play but you.
And the dictionary, and common sense. Just because a couple of people on here agree with you doesn't mean it's not a circular argument. Using your definition in an argument ABOUT the validity of that definition is circular. PERIOD.
Dictionary definition outside the context of video games. And I am not trying to prove my definition with my definition. I am trying to explain what the definition is.
Then what definition would you like? I've tried to explain it to you guys from every different angle, that's why I'm not simply using my definition as an argument. You guys however simply keep resorting back to the same mantra about how this is what casual friendliness means so we're right. You have no argument aside from "look a few people agree with me."
Eigth, the word casually means irregularity. SC2 is notorious for being a game where the person has to play the game often in order to maintain their skill.
In any game, you have to play regularly in order to maintain your skill. The game is still casual friendly. What is your point?
My point is that in difficult games you have to do it MORE. It's not a binary state of either being CASUAL or HARDCORE. As is the case with everything in life, it's more nuanced than that. If a game is MORE difficult then it is LESS casual. You can't play it casually because you have to work at it to be good. It's amazing that you guys don't get this.
No its definitely not a binary state, but you still haven't explained why skill should be involved. A game can be casual friendly yet difficult to master.
Yes, I have. My gosh the answer is literally a few lines up. I say SC2 is a game where you have to play regularly to keep up with your skill, so it's not a casual friendly game in that sense. And you say so what all games require that to some degree. Then I say yes but some games require it MORE. So if some games require longer and more regular play sessions because they're harder, how can you possibly say that difficulty doesn't affect how casual a game is? It doesn't make sense.
Ninth, the word also means relaxing. There's nothing inherently relaxing or not relaxing about a shorter play session. You can have a game that isn't relaxing that takes 20 minutes, and you can have a game that is relaxing that takes 60 minutes.
Here we go with the general definition again.
Yeah, how dare I use the definition. Where do you think the term came from? Why do you think people are called "casual gamers." Because they play games casually. Casual indicates a number of different things, including relaxation. They don't want to play a stressful game. A really really difficult and inaccessible game like BW isn't one you can just play casually. You must understand this....
Look, those same casual players can play SC2 and enjoy it. The ladder system pits them against people with same skill level. With some practice, you can transfer what you know from WC3 to SC2. You don't need to grind for hours and hours to get gear, level up and be competitive.
It really irks you when someone says SC2 is casual friendly, does it? I feel that we could have a much more profuctive conversation the game wasn't brought up at all.
You so have to stop trying to push this idea that my ego has anything to do with this... it's getting so dull. I've mentioned a number of times other games that are MORE hardcore than the one I play. Why would I do that if this was about ego? I'm comparing SC2 to LoL because that's the best example I can think of and the comparison that I know the most about BECAUSE I play SC2 so much.
Since you didn't answer I'll ask again: Where do you think the term casual came from in this context? From the word casual, obviously. They are called casual gamers because they play casually. Maybe over the years YOU have emphasized in your mind the ability to play in short sessions or the ability to stop whenever you want and pick it up again later, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing going on. Casual gamers are gamers who play games casually. They are actual people. Games are made that are designed to target those actual people are called casual friendly games. If casual gamers on average aren't as good at games, then games targeted at them will be easier, on average. Do you think casual gamers are on average less skilled than hardcore gamers?
My apologies if I'm being redundant--at this point I'm not about to search the whole thread to see if someone else has already said this...
To me a casual friendly MMO is one that has fun things you can do by yourself if you only have 15 or 30 minutes to play while your wife or GF finishes putting on her make-up
In that sense, they pretty well all are casual friendly these days. Just about every single MMO in 2013 gives you the ability to fight, quest and/or grind in level-appropriate areas in a jiffy.
Thinking back to 10 or 15 years ago, it was hard to find quality 15 minute long gameplay in Asheron's Call or Dark Age of Camelot... just traveling to where the fun was would eat up most of that time.
Group content, almost by definition, is not casual-friendly according to my meaning... or it better not be. A 15 minute dungeon run (even though WOW has a few of those) is pretty useless.
For me difficulty has nothing to do with it. If I can enjoy it in 15 minute mini sessions, then it's casual friendly.
There is a group of people called casual gamers. Casual games are targeted at them. This is separate from the idea that hardcore games can be played casually, you see? Casual games are trying to attract casual gamers. They do that in a number of different ways. My point is that casual games will TEND to be easier than hardcore games. It doesn't mean every casual gamer sucks at games or are carebears or whatever else. But think about it... you have a group of gamers that by definition aren't going to be playing games as frequently or for as long. In some definitions casual games are people who don't typically consider themselves gamers.
so when determining how to attract casual players (aka make a casual friendly game), it stands to reason that they will on average be easier than games that are targeted towards people who play games in a more hardcore way. It truly baffles me that you guys aren't getting this.no offense.
Oh now I see what the issue is. No, I don't think he confused "casual gamers" or "casual games" with "casual friendly". Iselin makes a perfectly lucid point on the subject.
Casual friendly game doesn't necessarily attract "casual gamers" (those who do not identify themselves as gamers) nor is it a "casual game" (a game which you can play while on the toilet). It simply more accessible and requires less time commitment than a game which is considered "hardcore".
A casual friendly game is a game that is designed to attract casual gamers. Casual gamers desire, among other things, accessibility and control over length of play. Accessibility is related to difficulty.
Comments
How long is it gonna take for me to beat this level?
Me: if it's really hard it might take me a couple of day's, perhaps weeks. Main reason lack of time. Still want to beat that level regardless it's difficulty.
Maybe this makes it more clear to you Holophonist
So your argument is that a casual game is any game that you don't have to play? What?
The discussion is about what features attract what type of player. If you look at games that are considered casual, they're going to, in general, be easier than games that are considered hardcore. It doesn't mean that difficulty is the only factor, but it is one of them.
There are casual games and games that can be played casual. Both can be seen completly different. Where the casual game is in fact the easy game to get into. Where the game that is played casual might still be the hardcore game just takes that person longer to achieve playing it casual (lack of time) then a player playing it hardcore (between 6 -12 hours a day)
Some things that describe "casual games" from wikipedia:
I've said this like a bajillion times but I think you've come into the discussion recently so I'll say it again: the question is what features/aspects of a game/whatever are more attractive to casual players. Casual friendly is the term that start this discussion. What makes a game more "casual friendly"? Difficulty is one thing, among many things.
I agree with you completely, BearKnight. I'd rephrase it to say that the new generation misses the point of why some of us who played the older games miss them. Part of it was the game design (old games had everything), but another part is that the player base has changed.
If DAOC was released today it wouldn't be as successful because todays MMO players are jaded and impatient. You can't get the current generation to be decent guildmates, let alone alliance members or realm mates. Appealing to the current MMO player is mostly why game designers keep building shallower and shallower games, because the player base gets shallower and shallower. And as each new crop of shallow games come out, they fail quicker and quicker because there is little content or replayability in these games.
More developers need to take a look at successful MMO's like EVE if they want a game that expands over time, instead of a game that makes a big splash at launch then nosedives (almost every other game).
my answer is in my eddited reply before your reply.
Yes people can play a game more casually than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the "casual" game as considerer by most people. However, casual games are games that are more conducive to casual play. So really what you're saying is that there are outliers or anomalies in the data where some people will play a casual game in a hardcore way, or play a hardcore game casually.
What data? You are making all this up aren't you? You haven't linked to any data.
What are these hardcore games you keep mentioning? You keep mentioning hardcore games = games with tough to understand mechanics. So once you have digested and understood the mechanics the game goes from hardcore to casual?
You are going to have to list some of these so called hardcore games.
Hardcore doesn't = games with tough to understand mechanics. That is one thing that would make a game hardcore, but you can have a hardcore game without difficult to understand mechanics. And I have mentioned hardcore games many times throughout this conversation. Some examples: Dark Souls, Broodwar, Team Fortress Classic, Quake Live, etc.
And just because we don't have the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist. I'm saying when you guys bring up somebody who plays a casual game in a hardcore way, or plays a hardcore game casually, those are anomalies. They're outliers. They're not the norm. You're trying to argue against a trend by using extreme example. I'm talking about the trend. I'm saying hardcore players will gravitate towards difficult games more than casual players will, and casual players will gravitate towards easy games more than hardcore players will.
I think there are people who have missed the point of this thread. It's been pretty fantastic, but man has this thread derailed.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hardcore = You
Casual = Character
?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
THE DICTIONARY!!!
It's time spent before you can be competent. In the context of the debate it makes little to no difference. A casual player wants to be able to play the game without restrictions. That includes length of play sessions and it also includes how difficult the game is. If the game is incredibly difficult, you're not going to be able to jump right in and start playing the game the way it's meant to be played. So a really difficult game isn't conducive to casual play.
Yes. Venge said the only thing that that matters is the length of the play session. The sources he provided included many other reasons on top of that. They disagreed with him.
The definition of the word casual.
How in satan's spiny butthole is difficulty NOT related to accessibility? If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not very accessible. If you have to practice a lot to be competent at it, to play it correctly, it's inaccessible. Look at QWOP for goodness sake. Is that game accessible?
LOL.... no. I didn't ask anybody anything. It's a known issue that LoL is more casual friendly than SC2. Like I've said, there was a massive crisis in the SC2 community about the game not being casual friendly and it wasn't able to compete with LoL for those reasons. It lead to a lot of changes in the game, including things like ranks you can level up for each race, new avatar portraits and an emphasis on the "arcade" aspect of starcraft which promotes community made custom games that are mechanically easier and less hardcore PRECISELY to attract casual players.
Just because you're ignorant on this matter isn't my fault. It's common knowledge to people in both communities that SC2 isn't as casual friendly as LoL Believe it or not, I don't care. You're still wrong.
And the dictionary, and common sense. Just because a couple of people on here agree with you doesn't mean it's not a circular argument. Using your definition in an argument ABOUT the validity of that definition is circular. PERIOD.
My point is that in difficult games you have to do it MORE. It's not a binary state of either being CASUAL or HARDCORE. As is the case with everything in life, it's more nuanced than that. If a game is MORE difficult then it is LESS casual. You can't play it casually because you have to work at it to be good. It's amazing that you guys don't get this.
Yeah, how dare I use the definition. Where do you think the term came from? Why do you think people are called "casual gamers." Because they play games casually. Casual indicates a number of different things, including relaxation. They don't want to play a stressful game. A really really difficult and inaccessible game like BW isn't one you can just play casually. You must understand this....
Which dictionary is that?
In the context of the debate it makes all the difference. You can transfer over most of your skill from RTS to RTS, FPS to FPS, MOBA to MOBA, and MMORPG to MMORPG. What you cannot transfer is any accumulated wealth or advancement which you need to be or stay competitive in your original game.
I don't think Venge said length of the play session is the sole factor to a game being casual friendly. If he did, I would disagree with him. None of what he brought up, however, didn't talk about difficulty playing a factor.
Whose definition?
You can make a game accessible through good documentation, tutorials, intuitive and informative UI. That is called usability.
See? You yourself don't bring up difficulty when you talk about casual friendliness. Much of what you bring up is accessibility.
Dictionary definition outside the context of video games. And I am not trying to prove my definition with my definition. I am trying to explain what the definition is.
No its definitely not a binary state, but you still haven't explained why skill should be involved. A game can be casual friendly yet difficult to master.
Look, those same casual players can play SC2 and enjoy it. The ladder system pits them against people with same skill level. With some practice, you can transfer what you know from WC3 to SC2. You don't need to grind for hours and hours to get gear, level up and be competitive.
It really irks you when someone says SC2 is casual friendly, does it? I feel that we could have a much more profuctive conversation the game wasn't brought up at all.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
90% of all the arguments are either about definitions or preferences.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I almost can't believe this is necessary, but if a literature class has taught me anything, it's that looking words up in a dictionary of some sort takes some effort, but at least you can use words correctly.
The level of difficulty or required level of skill when talking about "casual" isn't really a consideration.
Does SC2 have a formal set of rules, that must be followed by design? Are there informal "rules" that people follow, that are above and beyond the rules provided by developer? If so, then it's probably not a "casual" game.
However, someone can play a non-casual game in a casual manner. If someone plays SC2 when they feel like it or irregularly, even if they are very competitive when they play, they are a "casual" playing a non-casual game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The level of difficulty or required level of skill when talking about "casual" isn't really a consideration.
Does SC2 have a formal set of rules, that must be followed by design? Are there informal "rules" that people follow, that are above and beyond the rules provided by developer? If so, then it's probably not a "casual" game.
However, someone can play a non-casual game in a casual manner. If someone plays SC2 when they feel like it or irregularly, even if they are very competitive when they play, they are a "casual" playing a non-casual game.
People keep bringing this up and I keep explaining the difference. Yes, people can play a non casual game casually. The question is what makes a game casual friendly. What is going to facilitate casual play? What is going to attract casual players. If a game is extremely mechanically difficult, that's not conducive to somebody playing it casually. You have to work to get good at it which means you can't get into it quickly. You can't play it sitting on the toilet as TB puts it. And the skill to play the game is something that you lose if you don't play it regularly, so the game isn't a natural fit for a casual player. It's not casual friendly.
My apologies if I'm being redundant--at this point I'm not about to search the whole thread to see if someone else has already said this...
To me a casual friendly MMO is one that has fun things you can do by yourself if you only have 15 or 30 minutes to play while your wife or GF finishes putting on her make-up
In that sense, they pretty well all are casual friendly these days. Just about every single MMO in 2013 gives you the ability to fight, quest and/or grind in level-appropriate areas in a jiffy.
Thinking back to 10 or 15 years ago, it was hard to find quality 15 minute long gameplay in Asheron's Call or Dark Age of Camelot... just traveling to where the fun was would eat up most of that time.
Group content, almost by definition, is not casual-friendly according to my meaning... or it better not be. A 15 minute dungeon run (even though WOW has a few of those) is pretty useless.
For me difficulty has nothing to do with it. If I can enjoy it in 15 minute mini sessions, then it's casual friendly.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
There is a group of people called casual gamers. Casual games are targeted at them. This is separate from the idea that hardcore games can be played casually, you see? Casual games are trying to attract casual gamers. They do that in a number of different ways. My point is that casual games will TEND to be easier than hardcore games. It doesn't mean every casual gamer sucks at games or are carebears or whatever else. But think about it... you have a group of gamers that by definition aren't going to be playing games as frequently or for as long. In some definitions casual games are people who don't typically consider themselves gamers.so when determining how to attract casual players (aka make a casual friendly game), it stands to reason that they will on average be easier than games that are targeted towards people who play games in a more hardcore way. It truly baffles me that you guys aren't getting this.no offense.
Oh now I see what the issue is. No, I don't think he confused "casual gamers" or "casual games" with "casual friendly". Iselin makes a perfectly lucid point on the subject.
Casual friendly game doesn't necessarily attract "casual gamers" (those who do not identify themselves as gamers) nor is it a "casual game" (a game which you can play while on the toilet). It simply more accessible and requires less time commitment than a game which is considered "hardcore".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Take your pick. The common theme among the definitions is relaxed, not short sessions.
Noting how they're different doesnt demonstrate how it matters in the context of the debate. The context of the debate is can I pick up this game and be playing somewhat quickly. Accessibility. In a game that is mechanically difficult like SC2, Broodwar, etc. it will take longer before you're playing the game in a competent way. This is not fundamentally different from LoL's rank where it too will take a certain amount of time before you're playing at a competent level.
I don't care what you think, he said it. Many times. Go back and look if you like. But if you're going to defend what somebody said, you should probably familiarize yourself with what he said. If you don't know, then don't say his sources didn't disagree wth him. They did.
And yes, you would disagree wth him. I POINTED THAT OUT AS SOON AS YOU GOT INTO THIS DEBATE. You said you don't believe the ONLY factor related to how casual friendly a game is would be length of play session. To which I responded ok well then you and Venge would disagree.
I said no definition of the word relates to (the length of) play sessions. You said what definition. I said the definition of the word casual. Now you're asking whose definition? I can't prove a negative. I said no definition of the word casual is giving you any indication about the length of a play session, yet it was Venge's main point. So how can I point to a definition that DOESN'T indicate that? Do you want me to just start posting every definition of the word casual? Why are you wasting my time with this definition BS?
The mechanical difficulty of the game is very much related to the accessibility. If a game is incredibly difficult (not confusing), it's not as accessible. As I've pointed out to you guys before, reality doesn't agree with you. The games that are considered non-casual friendly are the games that are generally mechanically difficult. Games that are considered casual friendly are generally mechanically easy.
Here's a quote FROM YOU:
"Games where you are literally just one button press away from having fun, are accessible."
Notice the key word there? FUN. If the game is too hard for you, you won't have fun. Correct? So how on earth is accessibility not related to difficulty again?
Is it really too much for you to read 1 whole paragraph? Again, I'm not saying the ONLY thing related to casual friendliness is difficulty, but I'm saying it is a factor.
Then what definition would you like? I've tried to explain it to you guys from every different angle, that's why I'm not simply using my definition as an argument. You guys however simply keep resorting back to the same mantra about how this is what casual friendliness means so we're right. You have no argument aside from "look a few people agree with me."
Yes, I have. My gosh the answer is literally a few lines up. I say SC2 is a game where you have to play regularly to keep up with your skill, so it's not a casual friendly game in that sense. And you say so what all games require that to some degree. Then I say yes but some games require it MORE. So if some games require longer and more regular play sessions because they're harder, how can you possibly say that difficulty doesn't affect how casual a game is? It doesn't make sense.
You so have to stop trying to push this idea that my ego has anything to do with this... it's getting so dull. I've mentioned a number of times other games that are MORE hardcore than the one I play. Why would I do that if this was about ego? I'm comparing SC2 to LoL because that's the best example I can think of and the comparison that I know the most about BECAUSE I play SC2 so much.
Since you didn't answer I'll ask again: Where do you think the term casual came from in this context? From the word casual, obviously. They are called casual gamers because they play casually. Maybe over the years YOU have emphasized in your mind the ability to play in short sessions or the ability to stop whenever you want and pick it up again later, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing going on. Casual gamers are gamers who play games casually. They are actual people. Games are made that are designed to target those actual people are called casual friendly games. If casual gamers on average aren't as good at games, then games targeted at them will be easier, on average. Do you think casual gamers are on average less skilled than hardcore gamers?
A casual friendly game is a game that is designed to attract casual gamers. Casual gamers desire, among other things, accessibility and control over length of play. Accessibility is related to difficulty.